Chinese armoured Vehicles - Third Generation

Originally posted by on_yur_6
Nice pictures Chinawhite

Sounds like some have forgot the Chinese incursion into Korea that kicked our butts back to Pusan.

Depends how you define kicking but. The CHinese lost close to one million ' volunteers ' and were pushed back to the 38th parallel after the US and UN recovered from their surprise. The US could have pushed the Chinese all the way out of Korea if they had been willing to commit 5% of the resources they used in defeating Japan and Germany.
So as far as kicing but, NO.

Originally posted by rogue1
The CHinese lost close to one million ' volunteers ' and were pushed back to the 38th parallel

The total number of chinese soldiers which entered the war during the entire time was 2 million. Unless your going to claim that every second soldier died

These figures are from the same people who claimed 792 Migs shot down, which were later revised to 379. (These are rough figures from my memory) . How reliable can they be

These are the chinese figures which are much more reliable than american figures based on "battle" reports

KIA: 110,400
DIED OF WOUNDS: 21,600
DIED OF SICKNESS: 13,000
CAPTURED & MISSING: 25,600
WOUNDED: 260,000

The US could have pushed the Chinese all the way out of Korea if they had been willing to commit 5% of the resources they used in defeating Japan and Germany.

US used 86% of its infantry and 14% of its Marine Corps, rotated over 1.319 million troops during the korean war.

Much more than 5%.

Originally posted by chinawhite
These are the chinese figures which are much more reliable than american figures based on "battle" reports

Erm why would they be more relaible, it is in Chinese interests to cover up their losses especially back during that time.

The US could have pushed the Chinese all the way out of Korea if they had been willing to commit 5% of the resources they used in defeating Japan and Germany.

US used 86% of its infantry and 14% of its Marine Corps, rotated over 1.319 million troops during the korean war.

Much more than 5%.

Reread what I said, during WWII Also it seems that we can agree the US dished out far far more punishment than it recieved. Also lucky for the CHinese that the SOviets committed their vest pilots in the air war and provided AAA defence for PLAAF Manchurian air bases. So we can credit the USSR literally providing and training the PLAAF and when the PLAAF failed to perform they committed their elite pilots.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by chinawhite
These are the chinese figures which are much more reliable than american figures based on "battle" reports

Erm why would they be more relaible, it is in Chinese interests to cover up their losses especially back during that time.

The US could have pushed the Chinese all the way out of Korea if they had been willing to commit 5% of the resources they used in defeating Japan and Germany.

US used 86% of its infantry and 14% of its Marine Corps, rotated over 1.319 million troops during the korean war.

Much more than 5%.

Reread what I said, during WWII

Also it seems that we can agree the US dished out far far more punishment than it recieved. Also lucky for the CHinese that the SOviets committed their vest pilots in the air war and provided AAA defence for PLAAF Manchurian air bases. So we can credit the USSR literally providing and training the PLAAF and when the PLAAF failed to perform they committed their elite pilots.

No, the US did not dish out far more punishment than it recieved. the amount of death during the korean was not covered up on the chinese side. It WAS indeed a major sucess for the chinese, since the objective on the chinese side was to defend NK, where the as the UN actually wanted to united the two koreas and wipe out NK.

propagandas was not happening too intense at the time of the korea war, propagandas was mostly happening during/around the cultural revolution period (1960-1980)
ppl in the 50's fought not because of political propagandas, but because their "utopia" dreams.

I know some of the older ppl who actually went to the korean war, and they all said that china had "won" the war, the UN soldiers lack tactics and courage, and relied mainly on their equipments, and as a result, lost more than it should to be.

but on the other hand, I also know ppl who went to the sino-vietnam war, and who ppl said chinese had a heavy lose, china had the upper hand only because china used more weapons (in terms of quantity), and the policy of that war had to be changed later on. Soldiers had to kill all vietnamese they come across even women and children in order to keep themselves alive. Due to the inhumanity and the heavy casualty of vienam war, the war was quickly ended.


BTW, Russia didn't give much help to china, that's why they later turned to against eachother, and eventually fought each other, and aimed nukes each other.
the relationship between china and USSR was nothing like that of US and Canada during the cold war.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by warset]

posted by chinawhite

The total number of Chinese soldiers which entered the war during the entire time was 2 million. Unless your going to claim that every second soldier died . . “ [Edited by Don W]

Although obviously the PLA, the Chinese called them “volunteers” to avoid a direct confrontation with the US and UN. Our side was “agreeable” to this subterfuge as we did not want a confrontation either.

These are Chinese figures which are much more reliable than American figures, based on "battle" reports

KIA: 110,400
DIED OF WOUNDS: 21,600
DIED OF SICKNESS: 13,000
CAPTURED & MISSING: 25,600
WOUNDED: 260,000

We like round numbers. We say we killed 1 million Vietnamese. They say we killed 3 million. Those are the kinds of numbers Americans expect. As Hitler would say, if alive, it is very hard to kill a million people. All the more to kill 8 million in death camps. The Chinese numbers sound accurate. I would have no quarrel with the numbers you furnished, C/W.

US used 86% of its infantry and 14% of its Marine Corps, rotated over 1.319 million troops during the Korean war. Much more than 5%.

At the close of WW2, the US had 13 million men in the Armed Forces. We had already discharged 3 million from the total of 16 million who served at one time or another between 1940 and 1945. By 1950, we had reduced the Armed Forces to much fewer than 3 million, combined. My brother in law was a USMC on Okinawa doing occupation duty, a soft touch, in June, 1950. His unit was sent to Korea and sustained many casualties, him included. He died in 1999, but he still had “left overs” from that period of service and the wound he sustained. I believe the US lost 45,000 KIA there. The South Koreans lost many more than we did.

More: I enlisted in the USAF in 1952, to fight for my country. I had no hesitation about serving, but my idea of war is to sleep on clean sheets. No sleeping bag on the bare ground for me, if you please. The Truce came in July, 1953, and I arrived in Korea in early September, 1953. Frankly, I was glad the shooting had stopped. My first duty station was at K47, Chun-chon. I had a dangerous assignment. I was one of a 3 man forward observation team, spotters to call in air strikes. Not someone the enemy is pleased to see. Armed with a radio and a M1 .30 cal Carbine. Stories abounded that said that weapon would not penetrate the Chinese winter uniform. Not overly pleasant to contemplate.



[edit on 9/13/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by warset
No, the US did not dish out far more punishment than it recieved. the amount of death during the korean was not covered up on the chinese side. It WAS indeed a major sucess for the chinese, since the objective on the chinese side was to defend NK, where the as the UN actually wanted to united the two koreas and wipe out NK.

Well lets see, if we talk about in terms of casualties then the US did dish out far more punishment. As for the the CHinese defending NK, there forces advanved deep into South Korea, if the US hadn't stoppped them NK Korea would have been united under the regime of Kim-Il-Sung, mkae no mistake about that. I wouldn't call that defence exactly.

propagandas was not happening too intense at the time of the korea war, propagandas was mostly happening during/around the cultural revolution period (1960-1980) ppl in the 50's fought not because of political propagandas, but because their "utopia" dreams.

Maybe some did, i doubt all would have been happy being " volunteered " to ight in Korea.

I know some of the older ppl who actually went to the korean war, and they all said that china had "won" the war, the UN soldiers lack tactics and courage, and relied mainly on their equipments, and as a result, lost more than it should to be.

Which older people are these and who did they fight for. I don't know how you came to teh conclusion that teh UN soldiers lacked courage and tactics, their battle record proves otherwise. The only time the CHinese had the upper hand was when they were surprised in the early stages of the CHinese assault. It is intersting that soldiers who lacked tactics and courage were able to hold a far superior force ( in terms of soldiers ) at bay for over 2 years and actually recapturing all of SK.
Also I wouldn't call Chinese human wave assaults great tatics.

Soldiers had to kill all vietnamese they come across even women and children in order to keep themselves alive. Due to the inhumanity and the heavy casualty of vienam war, the war was quickly ended.

Just goes to show what happens when green troops fight against battle hardened soldiers. The Vietnamese inflicted massive casualties on teh Chinese forces, which as you said were vastly superior.

BTW, Russia didn't give much help to china, that's why they later turned to against eachother, and eventually fought each other, and aimed nukes each other.
the relationship between china and USSR was nothing like that of US and Canada during the cold war.

Hmm, well if you call building the Chinese airforce from nothing to over 800 MIG's ( the 3rd largest AF at the time ) no help, I don't what is. Not to mention a large majority of UN air losses were not due to Chinese pilots but to Soviet Pilots.

Also the Rift between the USSR and the PRC had been brewing for a long time. Mao never really forgave the USSR for giving support to the KMT int eh 1920's. The realtionshop really began to fall apart when Kruschev heavily critisezed Mao's Great Leap Forward. Also Kruschev was annoyed when China decided to bomb Quemoy Island ( part of Taiwan ) negelecting the fact that Taiwan was allied with teh US and China with the USSR - this could have triggered a superpower confrontation. Which incidentally happened at the time when Kruschev was in talks with Eisenhauer. So teh USSR refused to back China up and a few years later withdrew all SOviet technical advisors. Mao was just too erratic.

Originally posted by rogue1

Soldiers had to kill all vietnamese they come across even women and children in order to keep themselves alive. Due to the inhumanity and the heavy casualty of vienam war, the war was quickly ended.

Just goes to show what happens when green troops fight against battle hardened soldiers. The Vietnamese inflicted massive casualties on teh Chinese forces, which as you said were vastly superior.

not really. PLA has pretty much won all the battle against vietnamese. Vietnam had lose pretty much half of its country in 2 months of time. But since china had no intention on invading vietnam, there was no point putting PLA into that country at such a great cost.

BTW, Russia didn't give much help to china, that's why they later turned to against eachother, and eventually fought each other, and aimed nukes each other.
the relationship between china and USSR was nothing like that of US and Canada during the cold war.

Hmm, well if you call building the Chinese airforce from nothing to over 800 MIG's ( the 3rd largest AF at the time ) no help, I don't what is. Not to mention a large majority of UN air losses were not due to Chinese pilots but to Soviet Pilots.

Also the Rift between the USSR and the PRC had been brewing for a long time. Mao never really forgave the USSR for giving support to the KMT int eh 1920's. The realtionshop really began to fall apart when Kruschev heavily critisezed Mao's Great Leap Forward. Also Kruschev was annoyed when China decided to bomb Quemoy Island ( part of Taiwan ) negelecting the fact that Taiwan was allied with teh US and China with the USSR - this could have triggered a superpower confrontation. Which incidentally happened at the time when Kruschev was in talks with Eisenhauer. So teh USSR refused to back China up and a few years later withdrew all SOviet technical advisors. Mao was just too erratic.

USSR was never much of a help to china. Mongolia was a perfect example, it use to be part of china, but since USSR want it to be part of their country, USSR had asked china for it. Of couse china didn't want Mongolia to become part of USSR, but since USSR was the big "boss" at the time, it is not "polite" to refuse. So they later on agree to let Mongolia to be an independent communist country on its own, and china own gets to keep a small part of it (called the inner mongolia).

anyways, there were numerous problems china had when dealing with USSR, that eventually made china and USSR turned against eachother. At some point (Nixon era), china was actually more on the US side than the USSR side.


PS. chinese ppl in the 50's acutally did have a really strong "utopia" dream/goal, and it is actually called Utopia. But ppl's dream began to fall in the mid 60's after a serious of calamity, and even some of the top political leaders start to lose their faith. that's when the gang of four came in power and launched a massive campaign called the cultural revolution, to artifically controll ppl's thoughts. And that's where the "1984"/"animal farm" type tragedy starts. pretty much all the chinese officials were put in jail, and the country was run by brain washed teenagers.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by warset]

I swear this thread is meant to be about Chinese armoured Vehicles - Third Generation, and I think it would be best if you all returned to the original topic rather than argueing off topic.

Originally posted by warset

Originally posted by rogue1

Soldiers had to kill all vietnamese they come across even women and children in order to keep themselves alive. Due to the inhumanity and the heavy casualty of vienam war, the war was quickly ended.

Just goes to show what happens when green troops fight against battle hardened soldiers. The Vietnamese inflicted massive casualties on teh Chinese forces, which as you said were vastly superior.

not really. PLA has pretty much won all the battle against vietnamese. Vietnam had lose pretty much half of its country in 2 months of time. But since china had no intention on invading vietnam, there was no point putting PLA into that country at such a great cost.

LOL, I don't know what history you've been taught, but the PRC never even remotel close to concurring half of Vietnam.

Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advanced some eight kilometers into Vietnam along a broad front. It then slowed and nearly stalled because of heavy Vietnamese resistance and difficulties within the Chinese supply system. On February 21, the advance resumed against Cao Bang in the far north and against the all-important regional hub of Lang Son. Chinese troops entered Cao Bang on February 27, but the city was not secured completely until March 2. Lang Son fell two days later. On March 5, the Chinese, saying Vietnam had been sufficiently chastised, announced that the campaign was over. Beijing declared its "lesson" finished and the PLA withdrawal was completed on March 16.

China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a complete failure: "China failed to force a Vietnamese withdrawal from [Cambodia], failed to end border clashes, failed to cast doubt on the strength of the Soviet power, failed to dispel the image of China as a paper tiger, and failed to draw the United States into an anti-Soviet coalition

www.globalsecurity.org...

Now that's hardly conquering half of Vietnam, they could barely manage 8 km across the border.

PS. I also see you fail to dispute the fact that during the Korean War the USSR built the Chinese airforce from nothing and claimed most of the aerial victories

[Mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire previous post]




It was 40km to be more precise

the air force did not play an overwhelmingly important roll in the korean war, but of course i suppose the russian fighters did help somewhat.




Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by warset
It was 40km to be more precise

I thought yuo said half of Vietnam was conquered ? Now an incursion of your claim of 40 km at Lang Son anyway is a mere fraction of Vietnam.

the air force did not play an overwhelmingly important roll in the korean war, but of course i suppose the russian fighters did help somewhat.

Well, it played enough of a role that US bombers didn't venture too far into North Korea after the Russians entered the fray. I guess the scale of the airwar was played down in China as the PLAAF performed so poory.

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm why would they be more relaible, it is in Chinese interests to cover up their losses especially back during that time.

And its in the american intertest to exaggerate their kill ratios, as edvident in their claims about the amount og Mig-15s shot down.

I think people would know who was lost in their division. How are you suppose to account for the other 700,000 missing men?. espically on the anniversary of the korean war, I can picture it now, 700,000 x 5 (for the amount of family) saying "where the hell is my husband??????.

Yeah, that will work out.

Also lucky for the CHinese that the SOviets committed their vest pilots in the air war and provided AAA defence for PLAAF Manchurian air bases.

Chinese operators performed the AAA defence. And its pretty good the chinese even managed to get air kills considering the average flight time for a chinese pilot was less than 3 hours competing againest seasoned WW2 pilots with countless hours under their belt and combat experience


And about WW2 fighures, i was assuming you included UN soldiers under "resources"

The topic is: Chinese armoured Vehicles - Third Generation, please get back on topic, if you don't the thread will be closed.

Consider this my last posted warning, my next action will be to close the thread.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
The topic is: Chinese armoured Vehicles - Third Generation, please get back on topic, if you don't the thread will be closed.

Consider this my last posted warning, my next action will be to close the thread.

the new vehicle are pretty good because they are third generations, or otherwise would be counted as second generation.

their US counter part is mostly Humvee if im not mistaken, and the chinese armoured vehicle should preform better than the Humvees since these amoured vehicles are probably more expensive and more complicated than H1.

PLA focuses more on light RRU rather than heavy MBT, i apparenly do not know the exact reason, but it seem to be their strategy. (combinding with their rockets and troops for quick attacks)

[edit on 14-9-2006 by warset]

posted by warset

The new vehicles are good because they are third generations . . the US counter parts are mostly [based on] Humvee if I’m not mistaken . . the Chinese armored vehicles should preform better than the Humvee since these [are] armored vehicles . . PLA focuses more on light RRU rather than heavy MBT . . I do not know the exact reason, but it seems to be [Chinese] strategy combining with troops for quick attacks. [Edited by Don W]

Could this very significant difference found in RRU vs. MBT be also labeled Defensive versus Aggressive? The Chinese the former, the US the latter? I believe the US has 3,000 MBT. I don’t know how many RRU the Chinese have. [What’s RRU?] [Reconnaissance R*** Utility?] I have already asked in an earlier post if the new Chinese armored vehicles might not be designed or better suited to use on the Re-Take of Taiwan? Where MBT would be useless? As well as for internal security? As “heavy” police support?

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by warset

The new vehicles are good because they are third generations . . the US counter parts are mostly [based on] Humvee if I’m not mistaken . . the Chinese armored vehicles should preform better than the Humvee since these [are] armored vehicles . . PLA focuses more on light RRU rather than heavy MBT . . I do not know the exact reason, but it seems to be [Chinese] strategy combining with troops for quick attacks. [Edited by Don W]

Could this very significant difference found in RRU vs. MBT be also labeled Defensive versus Aggressive? The Chinese the former, the US the latter? I believe the US has 3,000 MBT. I don’t know how many RRU the Chinese have. [What’s RRU?] [Reconnaissance R*** Utility?] I have already asked in an earlier post if the new Chinese armored vehicles might not be designed or better suited to use on the Re-Take of Taiwan? Where MBT would be useless? As well as for internal security? As “heavy” police support?

RRU = rapid response units



this type of vehicles are usually used in armed police force and UN peacekeepers

china might use this to avoid direct exposures to an airstrike or missile attack, by making its army or mobile and cable of hiding more quickly, and do sneak attacks.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by warset]

apparently china plans to do the same thing for it navy

they apparently are making a lot of it new class fast attacking boat (the new stealthy one with two missile silos on the back)

[edit on 15-9-2006 by warset]

I would hate too be in any armored column facing the USA these days after seeing the CBU-97 on Future Weapons the other day.

en.wikipedia.org...

Created by Textron Ind. the CBU-97 is a United States Air Force 1,000 pound (450 kg) class non-guided (freefall) cluster bomb, hence the name CBU (Cluster Bomb Unit).

The CBU-97 contains 10 BLU108-66/B tactical munitions dispensers (TMD) who each contain 4 hockey puck shaped sensor-fused submunitions that automatically fire at the first heat source they find.

The CBU-97 is very effective against groups of vehicles such as tanks and support vehicles. Each CBU-97 can cover an area of about 500 feet by 1,200 feet (150 by 370 m).

The weapon is deployed by US Air Force tactical aircraft from altitudes between 200 feet (60 m) Above Ground Level (AGL) to 20,000 feet (6100 m) Mean Sea Level (MSL) at speeds between 250 to 650 knots[citation needed].

When the CBU-97 is used in conjunction with the Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser guidance tailkit, it is designated as CBU-105.[1]


This thing cleared a few football fields of armor with one drop!


[edit on 15-9-2006 by on_yur_6]

Good article addressing chinese military vehicle development

www.strategycenter.net...

Originally posted by donwhite



Americans are too much self-satisfied with their system and can't understand why it has not been readily accepted by the majority of people on the planet who are not equally enamored with it.

[edit on 9/7/2006 by donwhite]

No, most Americans that are against the war in Iraq, our foreign policy, and most of all, that old George. Because of the governments efforts, we are too scared to stand up and revolt.